Who killed the rave? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who killed the rave?

#431

Post by bluGill » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:32 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #371

elzbardico wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People prefer cities due to access to stuff, but most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool. During different phases of life, your ability and your relative importance given to either of those two poles will vary. As you get older, especially if you are married and have kids, usually the trade-off skews strongly towards having a big house, and then you will balance the distance side of the equation. A…

> most people also would prefer a 3000 sqft home with a pool If someone else does all the maintenance, dusting and vacuum cleaning, maybe. Other then that, actual swimming pool for doing laps or actual water park with slides is kind of better in most cases. There are some people who would use that large house or would be using their backyard swimming pool often ... but most just dont. > As you get older, especially i…

Compromise is the key. You cannot have everything. There are times I wish I lived downtown. There are times I wished I lived in the mountains. There are times I wish I lived on the beach. If you live in the city that enables some lifestyles and makes some impossible. If you live on a rural area you get a different life, and suburbs again different.

I know farmers who think nothing about hunting off their back porch - and why not their gun doesn't have the range to kill a neighbor so they don't have to worry about missing their shot. I know people who shoot guns in the suburbs, but they have done extra work to create a safe range in their house (and generally only safe for the lowest power rounds). The denser your living the less viable having a safe space to shoot is.

There are things that are only possible in a dense city. You need a lot of people to have enough interest to support a symphony orchestra. There are a lot of niche stores that can only make it in a dense city because that is the only way to get enough people interested in that niche to support a store.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#432

Post by lolinder » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #415

daedrdev wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many cities effectively ban or heavily restrict new housing developments that increase density. I'm really not surprised real estate prices continue to rise when building new units is often an extremely expensive, risky process that in some areas can be stopped at any time with literally no reason required

Huh, why is college getting expensive, healthcare getting expensive, day care getting expensive, hell even streaming services getting expensive, none of these are heavily restricted that no development is happening there. And in many cities breakneck construction activity is happening still real estate is getting very expensive. This seems rather simplistic reason to me.

I have a strong suspicion that a lot of it is the rise of the two income household. In the early years it increased household buying power, but as it became the norm many services began raising prices because people could actually afford to pay them now. So the net result is that the increased productivity from nearly doubling the workforce turns into higher and higher executive salaries while the average middle class household is now roughly back where we started, with the added burden of a whole second career.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#433

Post by sbarre » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

zonotope wrote: post #386

mtalantikite wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the 20-somethings I know (and knew when I was also 20-something) are broke artists and models. They don't have $200 to spend on a night out every weekend. Nowadays certainly is affordable and there are others of course. People make it work. There were definitely expensive clubs that kids with money went to when I was young -- a friend ran sound at The Box and that was always wildly priced. But there was no sh…

I think a lot of those illegal warehouse parties died with the DeBlasio administration. At least, that's when I stopped hearing about them so I am open to the possibility that I'm no longer plugged in to the right scene. The DeBlasio administration was the first to add a "night mayor", and they made it easier to open legit venues in the same neighborhoods that used to host the illegal warehouse parties, like that tri…

I think pervasive (invasive?) social media and the "always-potentially-on-camera" reality, paired with cancel culture, has also killed a lot of "underground" scenes (and counter-culture in general but that's a whole other topic).

Re: Who killed the rave?

#434

Post by tensor » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:34 PM UTC

in-pursuit wrote: post #124

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #70

> The proportion of club nights running beyond 3am fell in 12 of 15 global cities between 2014 and 2024, according to a Financial Times analysis of events on listings website Resident Advisor. Club nights are not raves. Raves are (usually) not posted on RA. The underground scene is doing just fine.

I assert this without evidence, but I would highly suspect club attendance numbers and rave attendance numbers to be strongly correlated.

That doesn't make sense to me. Anecdotally, most people I know who love actual raves generally didn't go to clubs, for one.

But also more broadly, I've heard from multiple local venues that one big change is that EDM crowds don't drink as much. This means venues make A LOT less money, and that means fewer venues. If I had to guess, another factor is that younger crowds don't have the buying power older generations had, so if anything they would be MORE likely to go to an "illegal" rave with no cover and do some drugs instead of drinking.

Basically, to me, economic forces suggests that the rave crowd and club crowd are NOT correlated.

edit: and more anecdotal data for you, I use to go to a lot of clubs when I was young (and fewer raves), but now that I'm older me and my group tend to either throw our own parties at home with our own gear, or go to "listening bar" type venues that wouldn't typically be classified as a "club." We're all too old to drink high priced shitty beer and deal with lines and bouncers. I'd rather be able to have a top sound system, order an IPA or cocktail, and maybe even have a seat to lounge in!

Re: Who killed the rave?

#435

Post by veunes » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

_yb2s wrote: post #383

The author doesn't even seem to know what a rave is, most likely they aren't in decline at all. They're talking about formal, permanent dance clubs shutting down for economic reasons. Raves are mostly an underground - often illegal or questionably legal - impromptu one off event, organized through word of mouth and social media on an invite only basis. There is almost no way to get statistics on them because they are…

It seems to me that a lot depends on the country where the experience in this area was gained. The development of rave culture depends on cultural aspects of a country you are live in in many ways (it seems to me).

Re: Who killed the rave?

#436

Post by veunes » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:38 PM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #118

Probably a bunch of factors... Tier 1 city RE prices have made live entertainment venues harder to run profitably. GenZ studies have found a lower participation in "risky behavior" which late night clubbing may or not be considered. Mobile internet & smartphones seem to be killing all forms of live in person interaction. And finally electronic music of various forms used to be a niche, and now it's mainstream. In the…

It’s wild to think how much smartphones and social media have changed things...

Re: Who killed the rave?

#437

Post by dottjt » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:38 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #415

daedrdev wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many cities effectively ban or heavily restrict new housing developments that increase density. I'm really not surprised real estate prices continue to rise when building new units is often an extremely expensive, risky process that in some areas can be stopped at any time with literally no reason required

Huh, why is college getting expensive, healthcare getting expensive, day care getting expensive, hell even streaming services getting expensive, none of these are heavily restricted that no development is happening there. And in many cities breakneck construction activity is happening still real estate is getting very expensive. This seems rather simplistic reason to me.

The reason is growing inequality. Those are just symptoms of it.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#438

Post by _yb2s » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:40 PM UTC

jimnotgym wrote: post #411

_yb2s wrote: post #383

The author doesn't even seem to know what a rave is, most likely they aren't in decline at all. They're talking about formal, permanent dance clubs shutting down for economic reasons. Raves are mostly an underground - often illegal or questionably legal - impromptu one off event, organized through word of mouth and social media on an invite only basis. There is almost no way to get statistics on them because they are…

I'm guessing your mention of desert raves places you in a different country to the author? In the UK, where I believe the word originates when applied to late night electronic music events in the mid 80s, the term meant an often unauthorised event in a field or industrial site. Perhaps it was the noise menace, or perhaps people dancing in a field fuelled by MDMA caused a big deal in alcohol duty revenue for the gover…

That seems like important context that should have been in the article given they are talking globally.

I'm on the USA west coast, and we still have warehouse and outdoor raves here, and people wouldn't use the term rave to refer to a permanent dance club. Many are illegal, and the police do shut them down sometimes, but mostly just tell people to go home. I've also seen the police show up and not shut it down.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#439

Post by j1elo » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:40 PM UTC

Tade0 wrote: post #191

wpm wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply is artificially limited.

Supply can't possibly keep up when real estate is used as an investment. As an analogy to the dead internet hypothesis I present the dead real estate market hypothesis. Increasingly it's just investors buying and selling properties from each other. And it's not just a hypothesis. China built enough homes to house its population twice over, yet it's not reflected in the prices. All because everyone and their grandma i…

Sometimes I dream with a wishful solution like defining areas of "great living desirability" (basically the cities where seemingly majority of people compete to live in), and charge a yearly tax of N% the market value of each home (with crazy high N, like 20), for owners who have more than M units in that area (with a convervative M, like 3 or even 2). ...You'll see how greedy investors flee fast, and the remaining buyers are honest people who don't want to speculate, but to actually own a home where to actually live.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#440

Post by bluGill » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 7:41 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #345

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the opposite is true. It's easier to find a job in a city other than your own with the internet, and big cities pay the most

> big cities pay the most Big cities pay top performers the most, by far, but median incomes tend to be quite a bit lower than small town/rural areas. If you are a professional sports star or F500 CEO, the city is unquestionably the place to be†, but for the normal person who will end up in a drab job the money often isn't there. Many will accept the low pay due to being temporarily embarrassed CEOs, of course. † Alt…

Pay is lower in small/rural towns for the cheap jobs - but your cost of living is also lower. The trick is finding the best compromise for your situation - dense enough to have the higher pay of a city while not so dense that your cost of living is too high.

Where I live in the Suburbs of Des Moines, McDonalds starts at $16/hour. There are rural towns not far away where they start at $14, and I know rural towns farther out where you start at $10 (McDonalds isn't in these towns so it isn't a full comparison but that is the closest I can give). Where I live apartments can be had for under $1000/month so it is feasible for someone working at McDonalds to live on that wage. In the more rural areas apartments might be $500/month but you are making less plus the local grocery stores are more expesnive than the Aldi you could walk to from the apartment (thus meaning you don't need a car though crossing the highways isn't exactly safe).

Of course the real issue is people pick where to live based on factors other than cost of living. They care where their families live.